B Is an experiment planned to discern determinism and randomness in QM

[AndreiB]

An important part we have learned about Nature is the atomistic structure of matter, which implies that it is impossible to measure the "atoms" without disturbing them, because we need at least one other "atom" to measure. There's no way to measure anything without interacting with it in such a way as to disturb the system.

True.

That's also true in a way when measuring far distant entangled parts of a quantum system. Though there is no non-local interaction by measurement at A's position on the part at B's position, nevertheless the system as a whole is disturbed../

Relativity precludes the existence of extended systems that are "disturbed" simultaneously in all locations. If you have a rod connecting A to B and you rotate the A end, the B end will not rotate until a light signal could reach it from A. Rigid rods are impossible in relativity. So, by speaking about "the system as a whole is disturbed" you commit to non-locality.

You can also gain information on the outcome of certain measurements at B having measured A, but this does not in any way justify EPR's conclusion that this measured value at B was predetermined before A's measurement.

Let's say the A measurement was UP. QM says that the state of B is DOWN (regardless if B was measured or not). If the A measurement did not change B and B is DOWN what was the state of B before the A measurement? The only answer is DOWN. If it was UP before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was in an undecided state before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was a 6-dimentional pink rabbit before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. And so on. The only state B could have had before the A measurement that is consistent with the requirement that it was not changed by the A measurement is DOWN. So, for that particular experiment we proved that the DOWN state of B is predetermined.

To the contrary, for a maximally entangled system the observables of the parts are both usually maximally indetermined.

 

[PeroK]

Let's say the A measurement was UP. QM says that the state of B is DOWN (regardless if B was measured or not). If the A measurement did not change B and B is DOWN what was the state of B before the A measurement? The only answer is DOWN.

If two particles are entangled they do not have individual states before measurement: that is the definition of entangled. In QM you cannot talk about the state of each particle before measurement.

This question and your answer reveal that you do not understand quantum entanglement. And, crucially, you are imposing your own realist ideas in place of quantum mechanics.

All your arguments in this thread are based on a lack of understanding of QM.

 

[martinbn]

Let's say the A measurement was UP. QM says that the state of B is DOWN (regardless if B was measured or not). If the A measurement did not change B and B is DOWN what was the state of B before the A measurement? The only answer is DOWN. If it was UP before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was in an undecided state before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was a 6-dimentional pink rabbit before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. And so on. The only state B could have had before the A measurement that is consistent with the requirement that it was not changed by the A measurement is DOWN. So, for that particular experiment we proved that the DOWN state of B is predetermined.

I have a pair of new identical socks. I put one, let's call it A, on my left foot and it beomes a left sock. Instantaniously the other sock, let's call it B, becomes a right sock. Was B a right sock all along or did the sock A change it? Is there a cause and effect relationship? I personally don't have a problem with my socks to not have a predetermined value of their left/right-ness, and I don't need a spooky action at a distance to explain any of the above.

 

[AndreiB]

I think there is a logical third way out. I can predict what will be the result of measuring B at the time when I measure B, but I can deny that B had any value at all before I measured it. That's indeed how Copenhagenish (non-realist) type of interpretations work.

This is not a way out. The A measurement leaves B in a spin DOWN state. If A measurement did not disturb B, B was in a spin DOWN before the A measurement, and also before the B measurement (in some reference frame).

What you are saying refers to the meaning of a spin DOWN state. Is there a "real" particle or it's just a propensity for the instrument to give a "DOWN" outcome? It does not matter. EPR proves that the DOWN propensity was there before both A and B measurements. Since a DOWN propensity is experimentally distinguishable from an UP propensity or no propensity at all, they cannot negate it.

 

[Demystifier]

This is not a way out. The A measurement leaves B in a spin DOWN state. If A measurement did not disturb B, B was in a spin DOWN before the A measurement, and also before the B measurement (in some reference frame).

What you are saying refers to the meaning of a spin DOWN state. Is there a "real" particle or it's just a propensity for the instrument to give a "DOWN" outcome? It does not matter. EPR proves that the DOWN propensity was there before both A and B measurements. Since a DOWN propensity is experimentally distinguishable from an UP propensity or no propensity at all, they cannot negate it.

I've constructed an explicit hidden variable model in which those arguments are invalid.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2034

 

[AndreiB]

I have a pair of new identical socks. I put one, let's call it A, on my left foot and it beomes a left sock. Instantaniously the other sock, let's call it B, becomes a right sock. Was B a right sock all along or did the sock A change it? Is there a cause and effect relationship? I personally don't have a problem with my socks to not have a predetermined value of their left/right-ness, and I don't need a spooky action at a distance to explain any of the above.

In your example the correlation has nothing to do with the socks, but with the "instruments", your feet. The socks simply reveal a pre-existing correlation between the instruments. Since your "instruments" will always give you the same result, the left foot will only give "left" socks, and the right one only right socks the experiment fails to reproduce the EPR setup. Anyway, the explanation for the observed correlations is still in terms of deterministic "hidden variables". The left and right feet were there before the experiment, the results were predetermined.

 

[martinbn]

In your example the correlation has nothing to do with the socks, but with the "instruments", your feet. The socks simply reveal a pre-existing correlation between the instruments. Since your "instruments" will always give you the same result, the left foot will only give "left" socks, and the right one only right socks the experiment fails to reproduce the EPR setup. Anyway, the explanation for the observed correlations is still in terms of deterministic "hidden variables". The left and right feet were there before the experiment, the results were predetermined.

You are missing the point. Suppose I have two new socks, neither has been molded by my left or right foot. One of the socks is white, the other is black. Sometimes the outcome of my experiment will be a white left and a black right, sometimes a black left and a white write.

Also your complaint about the instruments applies to the EPR set up as well. You get 100% correlation only of you measure along the same axis.

 

[AndreiB]

I've constructed an explicit hidden variable model in which those arguments are invalid.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2034

You say:

"Presumably, any observation ultimately happens in some part of a (conscious) brain, which is an object well localized in space. In this sense, observations are local events. In particular, when an experimentalist (say, Alice) studies nonlocal EPR correlations, then all what she really observes are signals conveyed to her brain, even if some of these signals originated from a distant apparatus that measured spin of a distant member of the EPR pair. In this way Alice can insist that, from her point of view, entangled particles and the distant apparatus do not really exist. From her point of view, all what exists are her observations, which are local."

This line of argumentation, common to QBists is fallacious. The concept of a "local brain" presupposes an external objective world in which this brain exists at a certain location. If the QBist is serious, his brain is just another observation, an object in his mind. His mind is the whole universe, his brain is just an object "imagined" by his mind.

The QBist is then accustomed to "relativistic" observations. Of course, they all happen in his mind, like everything else. However, he notices that the speed of light limits the capability of his mind to imagine things. He can imagine Earth and Mars and he can imagine taking a picture of Mars from Earth with a camera but he is unable to imagine taking an "instantaneous" picture of Mars. for some reason, there is a time delay when his mind imagines distant things.

Then the QBist is exposed to the "quantum" EPR experiment and he is presented with two logical alternatives:

1. There is no time delay when distant things are imagined, his "relativistic" observations are wrong. (non-locality)
2. There are entities that his mind imagines but he is not conscious about them. (hidden variables)

So, he is back at square 1. The rejection of the external world moved the problem to his mind, but the problem remains. Solipsism cannot evade EPR.

 

[AndreiB]

You are missing the point. Suppose I have two new socks, neither has been molded by my left or right foot. One of the socks is white, the other is black. Sometimes the outcome of my experiment will be a white left and a black right, sometimes a black left and a white write.

The point is that the "measurement" results are predetermined. Your left foot was a left foot before the experiment, the right one was right before the experiment, the white sock was white, the black sock was black. The observed correlations are explained in terms of past causes that determine them. This is the conclusion of the EPR as well, I accept that conclusion, so I don't understand what you are arguing against.

Also your complaint about the instruments applies to the EPR set up as well. You get 100% correlation only of you measure along the same axis.

A Stern Gerlach device does not always measure UP or always DOWN. Your left foot always "measures" left socks. This is my complain. But the conclusion of the argument stands anyway, only in this case the "element of reality" is not the color of the sock (which is always white, in your first example) but the shape of the foot.

In the second example the "elements of reality" are both the shape of the foot and the color of the sock.

 

[martinbn]

The point is that the "measurement" results are predetermined. Your left foot was a left foot before the experiment, the right one was right before the experiment, the white sock was white, the black sock was black. The observed correlations are explained in terms of past causes that determine them. This is the conclusion of the EPR as well, I accept that conclusion, so I don't understand what you are arguing against.
A Stern Gerlach device does not always measure UP or always DOWN. Your left foot always "measures" left socks. This is my complain. But the conclusion of the argument stands anyway, only in this case the "element of reality" is not the color of the sock (which is always white, in your first example) but the shape of the foot.

In the second example the "elements of reality" are both the shape of the foot and the color of the sock.

Ok, here is a new pair of socks. Can you point to the left one, please! Oh, you cannot! Then what is predetermined about the leftness/rightness of the socks?!

 

[Demystifier]

Then the QBist is exposed to the "quantum" EPR experiment and he is presented with two logical alternatives:

1. There is no time delay when distant things are imagined, his "relativistic" observations are wrong. (non-locality)
2. There are entities that his mind imagines but he is not conscious about them. (hidden variables)

I don't think that either of the alternatives makes sense from a QBist point of view.
1. In observations by a single observer, there are always time delays. It doesn't even depend on the interpretation.
2. What does it even mean that a mind imagines without being conscious?

 

[AndreiB]

If two particles are entangled they do not have individual states before measurement: that is the definition of entangled.

OK, so the state of B before measurement is "no individual state". The state after measurement is a DOWN state. So, the A measurement changed B. Welcome to nonlocality!

In QM you cannot talk about the state of each particle before measurement.

False. You CAN talk about it, in the sense that such a "talk" does not contradict any postulate of QM. What is true is that QM does not describe those states, and this is the reason the EPR argument proves (assuming locality) that QM is not a complete theory.

This question and your answer reveal that you do not understand quantum entanglement.

I'm not going to answer to this ad hominem.

And, crucially, you are imposing your own realist ideas in place of quantum mechanics.

Can you quote the part of the argument where I "imposed" realism?

All your arguments in this thread are based on a lack of understanding of QM.

Well, it should be easy for you to point the errors, isn't it? Till now you just admitted to non-locality, you learn fast!

 

[AndreiB]

1. In observations by a single observer, there are always time delays. It doesn't even depend on the interpretation.

Yes, time delays consistent with the c limit. EPR contradicts that limit, so the QBist is in trouble.

2. What does it even mean that a mind imagines without being conscious?

A subconscious process, maybe? Sorry, but I don't know how to define the concept of hidden variables for a QBist. The idea is that he needs to postulate them somehow so that his relativistic observations do not contradict the quantum ones.

But it's very easy to see that the "locality" proof in your paper is wrong. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that a QBist is taken by Klingons, teleported instantly everywhere he likes, he takes pictures of distant places and those pictures prove to be identical to the ones obtained years later through a telescope from Earth. Now, if all this is not a proof of non-locality, nothing is. Yet, our QBist would not agree, because all are observations in his brain. So, the concept of non-locality becomes meaningless, a warp-10 klingon ship is just as local as an apple.

If you adjust your definition of locality so that it is able to distinguish between an apple and a Star Treck teleporter, the EPR proves QBism non-local.

 

[Demystifier]

But it's very easy to see that the "locality" proof in your paper is wrong. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that a QBist is taken by Klingons, teleported instantly everywhere he likes, he takes pictures of distant places and those pictures prove to be identical to the ones obtained years later through a telescope from Earth. Now, if all this is not a proof of non-locality, nothing is. Yet, our QBist would not agree, because all are observations in his brain. So, the concept of non-locality becomes meaningless, a warp-10 klingon ship is just as local as an apple.

To me, all this is just an explanation why QBism is indeed a local interpretation.

 

[PeroK]

OK, so the state of B before measurement is "no individual state". The state after measurement is a DOWN state. So, the A measurement changed B. Welcome to nonlocality!
False. You CAN talk about it, in the sense that such a "talk" does not contradict any postulate of QM. What is true is that QM does not describe those states, and this is the reason the EPR argument proves (assuming locality) that QM is not a complete theory.I'm not going to answer to this ad hominem.Can you quote the part of the argument where I "imposed" realism?Well, it should be easy for you to point the errors, isn't it? Till now you just admitted to non-locality, you learn fast!

This whole response simply emphasises the point that we cannot debate quantum entanglement because, put simply, you do not understand it.

That you believe you do simply compounds the problem.

In an entangled pair only the system of two particles has a state. The state of B cannot change, because B had no state before measurement. The measurement breaks the entanglement after which A and B have single-particle states.

It's clear you do not understand this or its implications for EPR.

 

[AndreiB]

The state of B cannot change, because B had no state before measurement. The measurement breaks the entanglement after which A and B have single-particle states.

Before the A measurement B "had no state"
After the A measurement B has a "single-particle" state.

This is, by any definition a change. The A measurement changes B. The Bohmian in you starts to emerge.

It's clear you do not understand this or its implications for EPR.

Well, you seem not to comprehend the meaning of the word "change".

 

[AndreiB]

To me, all this is just an explanation why QBism is indeed a local interpretation.

Using your definition of locality, everything is local. You simply define-away the concept. If an instant teleporter is local, everything is local. The problem with this definition is that some "local" objects are incompatible with relativity. Just defining a teleporter "local" does not make it compatible with relativity, so the fact that QBism is local according to your definition does not resolve the conflict. QBism remains incompatible with relativity.

 

[Demystifier]

Using your definition of locality, everything is local. You simply define-away the concept. If an instant teleporter is local, everything is local.

Not mine, but those of QBists. I'm not their fan, I'm just trying to explain what they say. But yes, according to them everything is local. Even if entanglement could be used for instantaneous communication between two agents, it would still be local for them because each agent is a local being.

The problem with this definition is that some "local" objects are incompatible with relativity. Just defining a teleporter "local" does not make it compatible with relativity, so the fact that QBism is local according to your definition does not resolve the conflict. QBism remains incompatible with relativity.

What physical mechanism do you have in mind for a teleporter? The only one that occurs to me is a wormhole, which is local. Besides teleporter, do you suggest any other ways how QBism conflicts relativity?

 

[PeroK]

Well, you seem not to comprehend the meaning of the word "change".

The two-particle system changes to two independent particles. The discipline of orthodox QM is to focus on states; not the realism of always independent particles.

In a deeper sense there is no A and B before measurement. That there is no classical analogue is one reason you need to think very differently about QM. If you approach QM as you have done with a rigidly realistic mindset, then it's not surprising it causes consternation.

This is at the root of EPR: the realist view versus the QM view that accepts that quantum entanglement has no classical analogue. That you cannot analyse it in classical, realist terms.

It's not that I don’t know what change is, but I can think more abstractly about how a physically entangled system may be described. Retreating into the mathematics of states, perhaps, but thereby not being constrained by inappropriate classical thinking.

 

[vanhees71]

Let's say the A measurement was UP. QM says that the state of B is DOWN (regardless if B was measured or not). If the A measurement did not change B and B is DOWN what was the state of B before the A measurement? The only answer is DOWN. If it was UP before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was in an undecided state before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. If it was a 6-dimentional pink rabbit before the A measurement, and DOWN after the measurement it means that the A measurement did change B. And so on. The only state B could have had before the A measurement that is consistent with the requirement that it was not changed by the A measurement is DOWN. So, for that particular experiment we proved that the DOWN state of B is predetermined.

QM says that if A measured up, then B will measure down. The state of B before the A measurement was $\hat{\rho}=1/2 \hat{1}$. The measurement at A is local, i.e., there is no faster-than-light influence at B's place. There's no way B can know that he will measure down before A has sent a message to him about the now certain outcome of his measurement. For both A and B what they observe on an ensemble of particles prepared in this entangled state are simply unpolarized particles. Only if they exchange their measurement protocols the 100% correlation is revealed.

 

[vanhees71]

This whole response simply emphasises the point that we cannot debate quantum entanglement because, put simply, you do not understand it.

That you believe you do simply compounds the problem.

In an entangled pair only the system of two particles has a state. The state of B cannot change, because B had no state before measurement. The measurement breaks the entanglement after which A and B have single-particle states.

It's clear you do not understand this or its implications for EPR.

That's not true. The subsystem has a state given by the partial trace over the subsystem A:
$$\hat{\rho}_B=\mathrm{Tr}_{A} \hat{\rho}.$$
It's called a reduced state.

If $\hat{\rho}$ is an entangled pure state, then $\hat{\rho}$ is a proper mixed state (i.e., not a pure state).

 

[Demystifier]

If $\hat{\rho}$ is an entangled pure state, then $\hat{\rho}$ is a proper mixed state (i.e., not a pure state).

It's an improper mixed state.

 

[martinbn]

That's not true. The subsystem has a state given by the partial trace over the subsystem A:
$$\hat{\rho}_B=\mathrm{Tr}_{A} \hat{\rho}.$$
It's called a reduced state.

If $\hat{\rho}$ is an entangled pure state, then $\hat{\rho}$ is a proper mixed state (i.e., not a pure state).

Which does not change no matter what A does.

 

[AndreiB]

QM says that if A measured up, then B will measure down.

Say A measured "UP". What is the state of B now, according to QM? Is it not "DOWN"?

The state of B before the A measurement was $\hat{\rho}=1/2 \hat{1}$.

Is this pre-measuremnt state the same as the post measurement one?

The measurement at A is local, i.e., there is no faster-than-light influence at B's place.

I believe this to be true.

There's no way B can know that he will measure down before A has sent a message to him about the now certain outcome of his measurement.

Who cares about what B knows? Let's say there is no B there, just a computer programmed to perform the measurement. All I care is about A.

For both A and B what they observe on an ensemble of particles prepared in this entangled state are simply unpolarized particles. Only if they exchange their measurement protocols the 100% correlation is revealed.

So, let's say there is only one observer, A. He will only confirm the QM prediction when the measurement record from B arrives to him, at the speed of light. So what? He can look at the time of the B measurement and deduce that the measurements were space-like. Are you saying that he cannot rely on the experimental records?

 

[vanhees71]

It's an improper mixed state.

I meant it's not a pure state, i.e., it's not of the form $|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|$.

 

[vanhees71]

Say A measured "UP". What is the state of B now, according to QM? Is it not "DOWN"?

Well, that's again a matter of interpretation. I don't believe in the sense of the collapse postulate, and thus there's no change in the state outside of quantum theortical time evolution. To know what's the state after A's measurement I'd need to know how the measurement device is constructed and how to describe the interaction of A's photon with the measurement device (i.e., I'd need a Hamiltonian to model this interaction).

 

[Demystifier]

I meant it's not a pure state, i.e., it's not of the form $|\psi \rangle \langle \psi|$.

Ah, so you were not talking about this: https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0795

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[berkeman]

After a Mentor discussion, thread will remain closed.